Bill of Rights. FTW!

NOTE: Recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 26, the following is a special Bill of Rights Day message from Michael Boldin. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link.
*******

Today is an important day in American history. On December 15, 1791, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution – known as the Bill of Rights – came into effect through the process of ratification by the States.

Most people have their own view of what the purpose and effect of the Bill of Rights was supposed to be. Some think it authorizes DC to enforce a nationwide free speech zone. Others think it requires the Feds to protect the right to keep and bear arms in every nook and cranny in the country. And others think that there must be a nationwide separation of church and state in every state, county, city and town.

To those of you who believe that federally-run education in this country has destroyed public knowledge of the Founders’ Constitution, my next comment is no shocker – all of these people are wrong. According to the founders, that is.

THE BASICS

First, we have to understand why we even have a Constitution – and thus – a Bill of Rights.

The entire founding generation toiled under the tyranny of the King of England, a king that had no virtually no limits on his power. He could make rules as he went, change them on a whim, and change them back. He could seize your property, your labor or your life – and you could do almost nothing about it.

Because of this, the Constitution was written to spell out the limited powers delegated to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that this government had no powers that weren’t delegated to it in the Constitution.

The original Constitution contained no Bill of Rights. Many of the Framers felt it wasn’t necessary since the Constitution clearly enumerated the few powers delegated to the federal government. They thought any further restrictions would be redundant.

However, some of them thought there could be misunderstandings. So a Bill of Rights was proposed – and some states ratified the Constitution only on condition that those amendments would be added, which happened a few years later.

A PREAMBLE?

Adding a preamble to a legal document was common practice at the time. It could indentify the parties, list important facts, and explain the purpose of the document.

Many people are unaware that, like the main body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights had a preamble too – explaining its purpose.

So what was this purpose? No better way to answer that question than in the words of the founders themselves – the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…

“Thus, some of the proposed amendments were “declaratory…clauses” (that is, rules of construction) designed to “prevent misconstruction” of the Constitution by explaining how the instrument should be interpreted. The rest were “restrictive clauses” to prevent “abuse” of federal powers by creating external limitations curtailing those powers.” [emphasis added]

The important message here is that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to you, it doesn’t apply to me, it doesn’t apply to any person at all. It applies to the federal government.

NOT THE STATES? NO WAY!

Maybe it’s because most people weren’t taught that a Preamble to the Bill of Rights even existed, or maybe because they confuse the word “constitutional” with the word “good” – but it’s quite rare to find someone who doesn’t disagree with the preamble to the Bill of Rights.

Many opponents claim things like…

“The 1st Amendment is the only one that mentions just Congress, so the rest apply to everyone and not just congress.”

“The states agreed to the Bill of Rights, and combined with the Supremacy clause, that means the states can’t violate those parts of the constitution.”

While there are others, these are some of the most prominent reasons people give for – essentially – disagreeing with the Founders themselves on the Bill of Rights.

Each could use a full discussion on their own, but the important points are:

1. The First Amendment – this was the only Amendment which specifically prohibited the making of a law. When the Founders wrote the word “law” in the First Amendment, they meant it. And Congress was the only branch of government that was supposed to make law. So today, while we have an executive branch that makes law through executive order, and a judicial branch that legislates from the bench; at the time of the founding it would have been absurd to include either of those branches in an Amendment preventing the making of law. And that’s a big part of why the 1st starts with the words “Congress shall make no law…”

2. Claiming that because the states ratified the Bill of Rights that it somehow meant each amendment applied to the states too is just bad logic. Think of it like this – You and twelve business partners own an apartment complex. You hire a person to manage the property, and give him some rules about how you want your property run. He follows your rules pretty closely at first, but eventually he starts showing up at the homes of all thirteen of you. He starts demanding that each of you follow the rules for the apartment building that you gave him – in your own homes!

Absurd? Absolutely. Rules created by employers for their employee don’t necessarily apply to the employers too – unless specifically agreed upon in advance. In the case of the Bill of Rights, in the Preamble the employers told the employee (the federal government, that is) that it would have new rules, not them.

And if that logic-defeating logic weren’t enough, James Madison hammered it home in his famous speech introducing the Bill of Rights. In it Madison proposed that the Bill of Rights have three distinct restrictions on the states.

He said: “No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.”

What happened? Congress considered Madison’s proposal to have some of these new restrictions apply to the states. They rejected it.

FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS

The end result? The body of the Constitution primarily tells the federal government what it is allowed to do. The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do, such as the following non-exhaustive examples…

1. Make no law abridging freedom of speech, press, religion, or assembly.
2. Do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
3. Do not “quarter” soldiers in peacetime.
4. Do not conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, and don’t issue warrants without probable cause.
5. Do not force people to testify against themselves.
6. Do not deny a speedy trial to a person accused of a crime.
7. Do not deny trial by jury to an accused person..
8. Do not impose excessive bail.
9. Don’t assume that this is an exhaustive list of rights. Just because some are listed doesn’t mean the people don’t have others.
10. Don’t exercise any power not delegated in this Constitution.

THE LESSON

What’s the big message behind all this?

Centralization of power is always bad, even when it appears to have a good short term result. For every time you approve of the federal government taking on a new power for things YOU approve of, you’ve just authorized your opponents to do the same for things you oppose.

That’s why every person who advocates using the federal government to make abortion illegal nationwide has just authorized the other side to make abortion legal nationwide when THEY are in power. Get that, Rick Santorum?

And, every person who advocates forcing every state to allow marijuana to be legal has just authorized their opposition to ban it in the entire country when THEY are in power.

The same principle can be applied to just about every issue we face

Become a member and support the TAC!

DECENTRALIZATION FTW!

The system we have today puts almost all decisions about the fate of your liberty into the hands of nine unelected, unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers. Not a good place for any society to be.

How do we fix this mess? The first step is to stop going to the federal government to fix problems that are actually caused by the federal government itself (most are!). Doing so is not just an absurd idea, it has led us to the place we are in today.

Moving forward to the principles behind the Bill of Rights – decentralization of power – will bring you a huge step closer to liberty. It’s an idea whose time has come.

94 thoughts on “Bill of Rights. FTW!”

Logic defeating logic, LOL that is so awesome. You and the many here have shed bright light upon us in clarity that shall be seen. Your contributions to life is visible and I am so glad I stumbled upon you. Until I got here I felt like the lone ranger in a world of enormous ignorance.

There is now a light on Liberty as well common sense as we work to dig them from their grave in the desert of Nevada where they were buried never to be seen again. Self determinism will uncover them and make them symbols of real truth once more.

And as logic follows, these limitations were not to the states either. The states were free to set up a theocracy if they wanted. The could expel undesirable elements if they wanted. Each state could freely choose its course in time to set up a government most suitable to its needs. The federal head was simply to prevent states or any other nation from forcing or overtaking individual states in a way that infringed on the God Given declared right to govern themselves. The Constitution was simply to provide the safety and security that individual states could never achieve alone, or without great ability or time.

Our republic is an incredible entity, or was. Thankyou Mike B for bringing this to the masses. It revives my hope that we can turn the tide.

John Adams said he worked to perfect government so we could enjoy our prosperity. Unfortunately we citizens have neglect our responsibilities, and suckled at the breast of prosperity. The founders gave their fortunes and lives to establish a great nation. May we too catch their vision, never forgetting the liberty is not free, but requires eternal vigilance, and the blessings of Divine Providence.

@tascmanwylie Good points! Something that people seem to forget is that each state has its own constitution too. But those no longer are state rules, they’re little suggestions, because all things are federal in modern times. Bad news.

From what I know, the founders were confident that the idea of limited government would spread liberty throughout the world. I wonder what happened? Was it just that others never saw the magnificence of the concept? Or did we never really grasp it that we would promote it?

I have always enjoyed reading the original 13 state constitutions! Good stuff!

@tascmanwylie Pennsylvanians, since at least 1976, do not have the right to emigrate from the State if the State wished to deny it. Our Constitution was, in a sense, an inversion of the federal. Any rights not specifically given the people are reserved to the State. As late as the PA Constitution of 1873, article 1, section 25 specifically said that emigration from the State could not be prohibited. This was not in the Constitution of 1976. Somewhere buried in my files is a full sized sample ballot that asked if the “obsolete” provision “prohibiting” emigration be removed. The people were lead to believe the provision prohibited emigration when, in fact, it granted the right. We were deceived into voting away that right.

CNN was unusually candid with other things that COULD be regulated, like not wearing a necktie when using paper shredders or lighting gas stoves with matches. Point being there is no end to what one can make laws about. And no end to folks who would desire make laws to CONTROL others. I like to think of Power based on proximity. When found at a federal level or state for that matter, it is very difficult to address concerns from the citizens. The more localized a law is, the more responsive to the people. Thus Federal and State Law should NEVER be whim or passion, but RULE of PRINCIPLE, precepts that will endure through time.

Today we sadly see [actually we would be shocked to the bone to see] much of what we use in our daily lives is federally controlled. The argument for how much power would be delegated was hot even at the signing of the Constitution. Our current problem is the abuse of power, and if we will except the Constitution as LAW, it is the CRIMINAL abuse. Not other way to see it. No room for do gooders anymore. Law should be blind. The question is not whether we should cede authority for anything, say cellphone inertia switches, but whether we it is proposed at the right level to do so.

The question of power is not can it be used for good, but should it be used at all? Isn’t that the libertarian principle? Many American founders I believe felt that if power was only ceded to prevent infringement of individual rights, then liberty would flourish. The least amount of power ceded at the lowest level is best.

Personally I think precepts like Moses commandments, and judges to weigh individual incidents is the best form of government we could hope for. Maximum Liberty and minimal law. The secular version of this is Common Law.

If we would grasp the precepts of Common Law, adding to it eternal diligence to defend against those who desire the power control others, then we would fully realize our human potential. And finally, if we remember our “self evident truths…”; God Gives Rights, and all those who violate another’s rights will have to answer to their Creator.

@tascmanwylie I agree that those things should not be the concern of the federal government. They shouldn’t be the concern of government at any level unless they endanger someone else. This is, off course, the case of using cell phones while driving or leaning over the edge of a skyscraper because someone falling could land on someone below. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts (an expression that used to mean something) that the fedstapo is behind seatbelt laws.

As far as I’m concerned, cell phone makers should be required, yes, that’s what I, a Libertarian say, should be required to put inertia switches in cell phones that would make them inoperable at speeds over ten mph. I have loved ones on the roads and I’ve seen too many drivers with a phone shoved in their ear and their heads shoved up their, uh, donkeys.

CNN was unusually candid with other things that COULD be regulated, like not wearing a necktie when using paper shredders or lighting gas stoves with matches. Point being there is no end to what one can make laws about. And no end to folks who would desire make laws to CONTROL others. I like to think of Power based on proximity. When found at a federal level or state for that matter, it is very difficult to address concerns from the citizens. The more localized a law is, the more responsive to the people. Thus Federal and State Law should NEVER be whim or passion, but RULE of PRINCIPLE, precepts that will endure through time.

Today we sadly see [actually we would be shocked to the bone to see] much of what we use in our daily lives is federally controlled. The argument for how much power would be delegated was hot even at the signing of the Constitution. Our current problem is the abuse of power, and if we will except the Constitution as LAW, it is the CRIMINAL abuse. Not other way to see it. No room for do gooders anymore. Law should be blind. The question is not whether we should cede authority for anything, say cellphone inertia switches, but whether we it is proposed at the right level to do so.

The question of power is not can it be used for good, but should it be used at all? Isn’t that the libertarian principle? Many American founders I believe felt that if power was only ceded to prevent infringement of individual rights, then liberty would flourish. The least amount of power ceded at the lowest level is best.

Personally I think precepts like Moses commandments, and judges to weigh individual incidents is the best form of government we could hope for. Maximum Liberty and minimal law. The secular version of this is Common Law.

If we would grasp the precepts of Common Law, adding to it eternal diligence to defend against those who desire the power control others, then we would fully realize our human potential. And finally, if we remember our “self evident truths…”; God Gives Rights, and all those who violate another’s rights will have to answer to their Creator.

@tascmanwylie Maybe, tascman, but I don’t want to put faith in a God I can’t see to deliver justice to someone who kills, or causes to be killed. a loved one or even a friend of mine. In fact, I would rather prevent than see someone answer for the death or injury.

@phreedomphan Gods justice transcends time. The innocent are not forsaken, even if the perpetrator manages to escape the temporal justice of our day. A conviction of eternal judgement will curb mans passions. If we rely solely on written law, there will be no end of law books or lawyers to interpret them. That is the beauty of 50 independent laboratory’s of innovation. Freedom is a bit raw, but our Constitution was meant to give states opportunity to rule inwardly according to conviction of its citizens, and we can observe states and nations and learn from their successes and failures. Is not that the wisdom we glean from history? When we harm others, we become liable, and inflame justice. John Adams did not envision a secular state, but one based on biblical morality:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Consider a corporation. It will decide only based on cost, it does not have any concern for others. And no amount of law will make it better because its nature is forever for its own gain. And man is by nature no different apart from religious conviction.

We come into the world with no guarantees or possessions. We have our our naked life, and we leave the same way. We work to make ourselves comfortable first, then we should work for the betterment of others, but if we legislate that, we may find ourselves lockstep with brother Karl.

I almost started laughing until I read the end, That God fellow sure is given a lot of authority isn’t God? I mean I would never question authority, isn’t this the convincing?

Why did God give me life? And then allow me to choose something? and then allow some other to choose something? There must be some authority to control all the choice right?

How can I possibly believe in God or my creator and then ask these kinds of questions? What is wrong with my authority to ask as well decide?

Common law, what is so common amongst the common? Is Life so uncommon from other life? The will to decide, am I the only life with this? or do all others have such a common ability amongst life? Again how can I dare question my own authority? Am I or is God, who I ask will answer me? But God created life and life has all the abilities in common with all other life. Dear God please authorize me for others are attempting to authorize me or authoratize me, how shall I know who holds my permission? But I am my permission by my own choice, is that me questioning another authority? How dare I stand on what I know to be true when another attempts to discount me. Awe yes the all mighty authority over me, my choice is all that I am as life. It must be true as I have been told because I dare not question what I know unless I wish not to know and only allow others to know and authorize me. Having permission to live is so over rated, may I just choose to be?

Our Constitution is to support Liberty, it assures our Independence. If you call moral people life supporting life then so be it but there is no assurance of religious people. Many religious people have done acts of tyranny as was verified and communicated in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, freedom of Religion assures us Liberty or freedom from one Religious group.

If you are attempting to show a religious groups holds authority over such a document would be the act of treason or tyranny which we have decided to be independent of in Liberty by using the rules in the constitution which constitutes this freedom from such a dominance from any group or entity.

Perverting the language the perversion used against us for centuries by constant infiltrators using old tactics of manipulations and confusion to thwart such a documentation.

@WilliamSchooler Common Law or Natural Law was an attempt to study the affects of two statements; “Do all you say” and “Do no harm to another”. These are in agreement with Biblical principle. In the early days of America I am told [still reading on…] There was no law in the states. The practice of Common Law was by choice and disregard a judgement made you “Outside of Law” or Outlaw. At that point, the outlaw would have the rights of animals and no protection of the courts.

I am told this system was highly developed and Blackstone was a standard in the science of Common Law.

I, myself say some things are also just as plain as the nose on our face. Some peoples willful acts would result in the end of society, or the race of man if practiced to perfection. This is simple logic. Keeping ones word and doing no harm has to do with our relations to others. Thus anarchy or immorality or hedonism will not support a society, and they have precepts in common, ultimately self is center, and the preservation and magnification of self. As long as self is center of our being, we will ultimately be isolated from all, and the culture will fail. Yet to pursue selflessness is not ‘natural’ to self centered man, this is something he must learn. This is where religious principle, understanding of origin and destiny shape our culture. And the pursuit of religious principle, specifically Christianity is something the majority of the founders embraced as being the purest of such teachings. Even Jefferson had a Bible based religion, though he denied deity of Jesus. Some say Franklin also was a deist, but I see something more, as he believed in Gods sovereign hand to ‘raise a nation.’ It’s not very deist to believe in a God who governs the affairs of men.

History is our text book. We must build on the failures and successes of the past. There is nothing new under the sun. You may choose to live, to be; but where will you destination be?

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45

You are correct many things are as plain as the nose on our face. Religious principals are different from one to another, some more complex and others far less. But religious beliefs are simply ways of life which are agreed upon and decided by the decidee, each life has this ability, not to be given or taken away by anyone in any authority if all actions do support said life which is defined as all not as one. What are the actions and what direction or course is the act taking?

Most had read bibles but I assure you the freedom of Religion is a consequence of acts by Christianity, the very one, don’t believe me go read the original Draft by Thomas Jefferson, he only pointed out what was observed, yet it was removed, why? Who would not want to let this cat out of the bag? Freedom of Religion equates to Liberty, freedom from one group dominating any other or free from a corrupt religious group.

The Declaration of Independence is clear, the deciding factor is life which is life supporting life by its own actions, this is viewable as the nose on your face. Those pretending authority make this up in their own minds the same as some groups in Religion have abused authority in their time, (but lets not speaketh the truth). Life in infancy is what? Curiosity, the desire to experience, for what? to learn, to grasp, to attempt?

Life living outside of this choice lives in self ignorance, again this is viewable by acts and results of said acts as the nose upon our face.

Common law is no bigger science project, it is simple in terms as common acts of respect from one life to another. Those attempting to claim its ownership for self authority is entirely false again this can be displayed cant it? Natural law comes from life in its natural state is doing something in a chosen direction, the directions chosen in support of itself are sublime or the greatest choices of all for life. Life not being singular is all, so acts supporting all are viewable as the nose on your face are they not?

Most of these founders were also experts in educational law which is an authoritative practice. Although one having ownership of choice may choose to decide as life, Thomas Jefferson the very example of this, not so much for many others I assure you or some of this language used in the Constitution would not reside.

Forget about the Bill of Rights. There are two bills in Congress now on the verge of passing. One is the Stop Online Piracy Act. Supposedly this is aimed at stopping piracy of “intellectual property,” especially such things as music which we know was subject to heavy piracy. However, critics of the bill say it will introduce Chinese style internet censorship. I was going to wait untill I had a copy of the bill and had analyzed it for myself before posting to my blog, but an article in Forbes 12/14 said the major problems had been “fixed.” I had plenty of experience in my active days to recognize a trick commonly used to disarm opposition. For that reason, I plan to have a post up tomorrow whether I have chance to analyze or not.

Another bill, which I just learned of today, the National Defense Authorization Act has already passed the Senate. Opponents say that bill will allow the government to arrest and detain indefinitely, anyone who protests or criticizes the government. In other words, it is aimed at dissenters. If this is so, forget the Foxtrot, forget the Waltz, forget the Twist – the Goosestep is America’s new dance craze.

I looked at sections 1031 and 1032 of 2012’s NDAA. Those sections specifically define terrorists as being al Queda, Taliban or anyone directly linked to those groups. The act addresses their war time detention and transfer. I honestly didn’t see any threats to American liberties. @phreedomphan

I looked at sections 1031 and 1032 of 2012’s NDAA. Those sections specifically define terrorists as being al Queda, Taliban or anyone directly linked to those groups. The act addresses their war time detention and transfer. I honestly didn’t see any threats to American liberties. @phreedomphan

@West Texan Thanks! I still haven’t downloaded it yet, so I haven’t read it. My past experience is that potentially very pernicious effects can couched in innocuous terms. I would also look for provisions similar to the Healthcare Obamanation that delegates much of the actual writing to the courts and the bureaucracy. Nevertheless, because of your message, I’ll hold off on a blog post until I get the chance to download and read the bill myself. Thanks again.

“In political wheeling and dealing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday 29th November, an amendment (SA-1107 ) to The National Defense Authorization Act (S-1867 ), sponsored by Senator Mark Udall (Colorado – Democrat), was voted down by sixty US Senators. The purpose of the amendment was to change the wording in a section of S-1867 sponsored by John McCain and Carl Levin called Subtitle D of Title X (Detainee matters). Mark Udall’s amendment would have introduced a rubric prohibiting the inclusion of American citizens living on American soil from being eligible for inclusion on US military roundup and abduction lists. The current version of the bill now being debated will allow any “suspicious” person chosen by a secret panel authorized by the US President, to be arrested extrajudicially by US military personnel, taken to Guantanamo Bay (or any other offshore military installation), interrogated and detained there indefinitely without due process of law.”

Fourwinds looks like a good site. When I get chance to take a better look, I may be adding it to the site lists in my blogs.

@phreedomphan CNN was unusually candid with other things that COULD be regulated, like not wearing a necktie when using paper shredders or lighting gas stoves with matches. Point being there is no end to what one can make laws about. And no end to folks who would desire make laws to CONTROL others. I like to think of Power based on proximity. When found at a federal level or state for that matter, it is very difficult to address concerns from the citizens. The more localized a law is, the more responsive to the people. Thus Federal and State Law should NEVER be whim or passion, but RULE of PRINCIPLE, precepts that will endure through time.

Today we sadly see [actually we would be shocked to the bone to see] much of what we use in our daily lives is federally controlled. The argument for how much power would be delegated was hot even at the signing of the Constitution. Our current problem is the abuse of power, and if we will except the Constitution as LAW, it is the CRIMINAL abuse. Not other way to see it. No room for do gooders anymore. Law should be blind. The question is not whether we should cede authority for anything, say cellphone inertia switches, but whether we it is proposed at the right level to do so.

The question of power is not can it be used for good, but should it be used at all? Isn’t that the libertarian principle? Many American founders I believe felt that if power was only ceded to prevent infringement of individual rights, then liberty would flourish. The least amount of power ceded at the lowest level is best.

Personally I think precepts like Moses commandments, and judges to weigh individual incidents is the best form of government we could hope for. Maximum Liberty and minimal law. The secular version of this is Common Law.

If we would grasp the precepts of Common Law, adding to it eternal diligence to defend against those who desire the power control others, then we would fully realize our human potential. And finally, if we remember our “self evident truths…”, that God Gives Rights, and all those who violate another’s rights will have to answer to their Creator.

Bud Trevor – laws that don’t comply with the Constitution are no law at all. There is no authority for such a law in the Constitution, so if some idiots in Congress passed it in 1871, it doesn’t matter. It’s as good as trash.

Bud Trevor – laws that don’t comply with the Constitution are no law at all. There is no authority for such a law in the Constitution, so if some idiots in Congress passed it in 1871, it doesn’t matter. It’s as good as trash.

That’s our point, Bud Trevor! It doesn’t matter. The founders’ constitution didn’t authorize such power to the federal government. They could write a law saying the Constitution only applied to vermont. But since that’s not part of their power, it’s null and void the moment they write the law. The Founders’ constitution stands whether they disobey it or not. It’s up to people like you to follow the founders’ constitution – and not their version of it…

That’s our point, Bud Trevor! It doesn’t matter. The founders’ constitution didn’t authorize such power to the federal government. They could write a law saying the Constitution only applied to vermont. But since that’s not part of their power, it’s null and void the moment they write the law. The Founders’ constitution stands whether they disobey it or not. It’s up to people like you to follow the founders’ constitution – and not their version of it…

The 14th Amendment is controversial but does affirm in the very first paragraph that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If a state, some number of them, or even all of them decided they were going to enact laws denying trials by indefinite detention, on what grounds could that be nullified at the State level(s) if the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal government? Moving to another State wouldn’t even be an option if they all were able to nullify the Bill of Rights and invoke extradition under Article IV in order to deny due process to those they accuse. Madison said in Federalist #48 that “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for”. Surely an elective despotism at the State level is not the government they fought for either. I recommend this site often for clarification on Constitutional issues. I understand that the States reserved more religious freedom legislatively than the Federal government, for example, but could Michael Boldin or someone please elaborate further on this article and the interpretationa therein? Thanks in advance.

The 14th Amendment is controversial but does affirm in the very first paragraph that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If a state, some number of them, or even all of them decided they were going to enact laws denying trials by indefinite detention, on what grounds could that be nullified at the State level(s) if the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal government? Moving to another State wouldn’t even be an option if they all were able to nullify the Bill of Rights and invoke extradition under Article IV in order to deny due process to those they accuse. Madison said in Federalist #48 that “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for”. Surely an elective despotism at the State level is not the government they fought for either. I recommend this site often for clarification on Constitutional issues. I understand that the States reserved more religious freedom legislatively than the Federal government, for example, but could Michael Boldin or someone please elaborate further on this article and the interpretations therein? Thanks in advance.

An important point not mentioned in the article is why the founders, with Madison and Jefferson taking the lead, wrote the Constitution of the United States of America. It was because our previous “constitution”, the Articles of Confederation, proved to be a failure. It set up a weak national government unable to deal seriously with other nations or to deal with domestic matters.

Thus the Constitution gave the federal government more power. However, that troubled the Founders. So they designed it such that the federal government had only enumerated powers and the the rest resided with the people and the States that created the federal government. Even then many felt that there needed to be further restrictions, hence the Bill of Rights.

As GreyLmist rightly points out, to prevent States from violating the rights of citizens, particularly former slaves, the 14th Amendment was adopted binding the States to the Bill of Rights.

As far as I can see, there’re only two controversial parts, the first limiting the vote to adult males and the second declaring that ANYONE born in the US (or its territories) are US citizens. In as much as it mentioned naturalized citizens, the SCOTUS ruled in US v. Kim Wong Ark in 1898 that those born in the US and its territories are natural born citizens, de Vattel’s book, “The Law of Nations,” notwithstanding.

Thus children born to illegal immigrants are natural born citizens and eligible for the presidency. That’s why the US should adopt an amendment as every other industrialized nations has done disallowing jus soli as the sole determinant of citizenship.

@Roberto Benitez Didn’t you also have to own land as well as be a male? Ditto children born to illegal immigrants as being unnaturally born. And one might consider the 14th amendment as inappropriate to the Constitution as the resistance of southern succession was to the North. I have also heard that 14th amendment was most used to give legal identity corporations far is excess of helping freed slaves.

@Roberto Benitez Wasn’t it also required that a male also own land? Ditto on children of illegal immigrants being unnaturally born. One might consider the 14th amendment as being as inappropriate to the Constitution as was the Norths resistance of the sucession of the South.

@tascmanwylie land ownership wasn’t a requirement of citizenship but often in many states it was a requirement to vote. Also paying a voting tax or proving ability to read was required to vote.

In as much as 3/4th of the States ratified the 14th Amendment it was entirely appropriate to the Constitution and is binding on all states. However, you do raise an interesting question as to whether or not sovereign States have a right to withdraw from the union.

Here is a short comment found in wikipedia:

The Constitution is silent on the issue of the secession of a state from the union. However, its predecessor document, the Articles of Confederation, stated that the United States of America “shall be perpetual.” The question of whether or not individual states held the right to unilateral secession remained a difficult and divisive one until the American Civil War. In 1860 and 1861, eleven southern states seceded, but following their defeat in the American Civil War were brought back into the Union during the Reconstruction Era. The federal government never recognized the secession of any of the rebellious states. Following the Civil War, the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, held that states did not have the right to secede and that any act of secession was legally void. Drawing on the Preamble to the Constitution, which states that the Constitution was intended to “form a more perfect union” and speaks of the people of the United States of America in effect as a single body politic, as well as the language of the Articles of Confederation, the Supreme Court maintained that states did not have a right to secede. However, the court’s reference in the same decision to the possibility of such changes occurring “through revolution, or through consent of the States,” essentially means that this decision holds that no state has a right to unilaterally decide to leave the Union. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state

This seems to contradict the 10th Amendment which states that powers not delegated to the Federal government nor prohibited to the States reside with the States. As the paragraph above states, secession isn’t addressed in the Constitution.

Roberto, the SCOTUS decision you mentioned is just one more example of the fallacious twisting of the Constitution by that court. The Preamble is not a part of the document. Even the concept of “forming a more perfect union” does not support denial of the right of the States to secede. How can a union be “more perfect” if force of arms can be used to compel members to stay? Sounds more like the code of the Mafia, at least if Hollywood portrayals of that organization can be relied on. Neither can we rely on words from the Articles since that document was thrown out by the Constitution’s adoption.

The Southern secession wasn’t the first instance of a call for secession. In the furor over the Louisianna Purchase, in which, according to Francis Newton Thorpe, the Federalists became Republicans and the Republicans became Federalists, it was suggested that the federalist states secede. This didn’t go far because at the time there were only three states with federalist legislatures. According to Thorpe, the question of secession came up again with the embargo of 1807 which hurt commerce and manufacturing in general, but especially in New England.

What I would suggest is a precedent for the right of secession is our own Secessionary War, usually mislabeled as the Revolutionary War. In that war, the colonies did not overthrow the King of England, they just seceded from the Empire.

@phreedomphan Your point is well taken. While the Preamble IS DEFINITELY part of the document, it’s not a rule, structure, construct, or law but rather a statement as to why the Founders wrote the Constitution. It’s their rationale.

However, in its decision the SCOTUS referred to the Articles of Confederation which seemed to hold that once a colony or territory joined the Union, it was permanent. The Articles while thrown out, did give substance to the Constitution; they didn’t exist in a vacuum. But I’d agree that by referring to the Preamble, the supreme Court out stepped its jurisdiction. It wasn’t its only time.

The precedent as you mentioned was the Declaration of Independence which definitely states that when a government becomes oppressive the people have a right to change, abolish, or leave it. That precedence still stands.

As an interesting sidelight, taxation, particularly without representation, by the British Crown was a major reason for the Revolutionary War. Today, the rate of taxation is far higher.

@phreedomphan Your point is well taken. While the Preamble IS DEFINITELY part of the document, it’s not a rule, structure, construct, or law but rather a statement as to why the Founders wrote the Constitution. It’s their rationale.

However, in its decision the SCOTUS referred to the Articles of Confederation which seemed to hold that once a colony or territory joined the Union, it was permanent. The Articles while thrown out, did give substance to the Constitution; they didn’t exist in a vacuum. But I’d agree that by referring to the Preamble, the supreme Court out stepped its jurisdiction. It wasn’t its only time.

The precedent as you mentioned was the Declaration of Independence which definitely states that when a government becomes oppressive the people have a right to change, abolish, or leave it. That precedence still stands.

As an interesting sidelight, taxation, particularly without representation, by the British Crown was a major reason for the Revolutionary War. Today, the rate of taxation is far higher.

@Roberto Benitez You’re right. Taxation is much higher and we have absolutely no representation. Moreover, the money is used to pay interest on the national debt owed to the banks who likely have a direct link to the banks that controlled England at the time of our War of Secession.

If you read the debates surrounding the drafting of the 14th and the ratification debates, it becomes quite clear that the amendment was not intended to “bind the Bill of Rights to the states.:” The 14th was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Raoul Berger provides and outstanding academic treatment of this issue in “The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

@MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment@Roberto Benitez My thought was even the drafting of the 14th amendment seems to be ceding a power to the USA that empowers it to rule over states in a way that caused a huge step toward federalism. While it was for humanity and good, it also ceded power. It is in that ceding of power that the states loose sovereignty. It is the practice of empowering the feds that disturbs me. Even now we vote issues, some needs are great such as jobs, healthcare and environment. But we see these agency’s quickly moved beyond the reach of the voters, and accept them as law. And soon the burden of regulation without representation begins to crush the people and industry, and those who would wield power are emboldened. The law of the nature of corruption will always trump natural rights, because it is naturally lawless, thus the need for all diligence to contain power, even when a great good is possible through it.

I am completely beside myself that our government has taxed the unborn US citizens for whim and passion of entitlements. I would think a simple spreadsheet would show that not everyone can drive a Lamborghini, but John Q public loves the idea! Our current spending course unsustainable, and it must be stopped. It is not that a proposed entitlement seems good or bad, but whether it should be discussed at a federal level.

Regarding the 14th, maybe it would have been better to draft an expiring law that REQUIRED states to adopt their own amendments regarding citizen rights. Once compliance was achieved, then it would have no further power as it does now, and the abuses that followed it. Sounds like the creation of the IRS.

@tascmanwylie I agree the 14th Amendment ceded power to the federal government. However, we must remember the reason for that was the gross breaching of human and political rights for minorities. It should also be mentioned the States aren’t sovereign countries but part of a Union in which they ceded limited powers to the federal government.

Here is a good description I found concerning federalism. “Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant with a governing representative head. The term “federalism” is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.” – Wikipedia

My greatest concern is that we’ve strayed so far from the Constitution that it’s fast losing it’s meaning and purpose. Ask most liberals and they’ll say the Constitution instructs the government how to take care of society and also the responsibility of citizens under the federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution sets up the structure of our federal government and then states the specific, enumerated, powers ceded to it by the States, with the remaining powers residing with the people and the States.

However, in our desire for security and handouts we’ve given up our liberties. However, as Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Sadly, the Bill of Rights is moribund. I’d say only the 3rd Amendment is intact, so far. What we need to do is to restore this once great beacon of hope to a democratic Republic under the rule of constitutional law under a free market capitalist economy with real contract law. Unfortunately, I believe things may have progressed so far that it’s time for patriots to dust off the Declaration of Independence and take it to heart with a vengeance, keeping in mind why Madison and Jefferson said the 2nd Amendment was written.

@Roberto Benitez Thanks for your little clips, they are very helpful. But I am a bit uncomfortable with the definitions democratic leanings as it clouds the importance of precepts and principles of delegated limited authority of Republicanism. This was the doorway for the camels nose so to speak. It was a Republican form of government we were handed, not a Democratic one. While we had some elements of democracy built into the Constitution, it was anathema to the founders that we would be one.

McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin; Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

It is the abuse of the 14th [and all the amendments for that matter] that bothers me, thus I wonder if it could have been drafted in such a way that the states were more protected from its abuse by their federal head.

“ In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

The founders had the freshness of rebellion and war that gave them the diligence to carefully lay out the precepts they understood would best to ensure their continued prosperity. Subsequent generations have only the memory and history to kindle their desire where the founders pledged their lives and fortunes to be able to have the discussion. That is what I feel that in the drafting of the 14th and other amendments we find a lack of gravity and diligence to defend sovereignty at all costs. It was hotly debated in the founders days; today it is at best, a footnote.

The schools are ultimately the source of our hope for changing the tide today. We need Americanism taught throughout, and from the bottom up, through the local community’s, not the States though it may help, but violates principle of self rule. Today we have federally mandated Marxist Multiculturalism and Revisionism in place of true history and the founders faith. The result, unfortunately is we’ve become an aggressor amongst the nations, propping up dictators everywhere to protect our interests to our shame.

[Washington told us this would happen] Today our cherished religious freedom is being used to write our epitaph where we once fought wars to protect it.

@Roberto Benitez What do you think is the best way to teach our American History?

If we are to reach future generations, history shows we must train the children. Today, we are simply those whom have a sense that something is wrong and are looking back to understand what we have been handed to us. The majority of Americans are blissfully ignorant of the conflict, happily plying their trades and seeking their short termed welfare, and we will find them weak allies in the battle to revive the glory of Americanism.

@Roberto Benitez What do you think is the best way to teach our American History?

If we are to reach future generations, history shows we must train the children. Today, we are simply those whom have a sense that something is wrong and are looking back to understand what we have been handed to us. The majority of Americans are blissfully ignorant of the conflict, happily plying their trades and seeking their short termed welfare, and we will find them weak allies in the battle to revive the glory of Americanism.

del·e·gate (dl-gt, -gt)n.1. Representatives who is entitled to speak but not vote.tr.v. (-gt) del·e·gat·ed, del·e·gat·ing, del·e·gates 1. To authorize and send (another person) as one’s representative.2. To commit or entrust to another: delegate a task to a subordinate.

@tascmanwylie There’s nothing wrong with using the words democratic or democracy as long as one realizes as you point out that the USA, or should I say USSA, was founded as a republican form of democracy and not a straight democracy. As a matter of fact, Fisher Ames, in a speech at the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention in 1788 stated, “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” John Adams wrote that, “Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

As a modern day example, wouldn’t the almost 50 % that pay no income taxes want a democracy in which they could demand that the rich carry all of the burden of government? Is this not was the Fabian socialist Mr. Obama wants?

The assault on our democratic Republic is unrelenting. Several cases in point arethe 16th and 17th Amendments which were a direct assault on States Rights. The 16th gave the federal government the “right” to collect taxes form the people directly. The 17th established “democracy” in electing senators. Now the progressives want to eradicate the Electoral College. There’re also efforts to allow non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, the right to vote.

It’s my belief that democracy will lead to a socialist welfare nanny one-party state.

@tascmanwylie@Michael Boldin I used the 20th century definition of “to cede” but I have to admit I like the word “delegated” better. Even if we assumed, wrongly I might add, that the powers the sovereign States delegated to the federal government were to be permanent, the States would still have the right to modify or take them back thru the amendment process.

The federal governments seeming assumption that clauses like the Commerce and Establishment clauses give it absolute power over the States goes against everything the Founders believed in. If Paine or Revere were alive they’d be calling for another revolution.

@tascmanwylie Let me first say what not to do. Even in many law schools students in constitutional law are taught about court precedents, not what the Constitution and tis Founders said.

We need to expose students to the actual documents founding our country and what they meant to the writers and people of the time. We need to teach more than names, dates, and places but the reasons why they occurred and to connect the dots.

For example, few are taught how the fall of the Roman Empire to Islam of Islam in Europe and the expansion of Islam in Europe led to many wars including WW I. Few know that the reason Columbus, ethnically a Jew, sailed west was due to Islam. Many are taught that the US is to blame for tensions with Islam, but few know that at the beginning of the US Islam declared war on us. That’s why we need to connect the dots when teaching history.

Many young people I know haven’t a clue about our political system or how and why it came about. Most believe we’re a democracy not realizing many Founders abhorred the idea of a democracy. In addition, we have to teach people that while all ideas have a right to be heard, not all are equal or even moral.

Roberto, I could add we are all students or we would not be in this class room attempting to define the golden slipper. Next all students are not sitting up prim and proper to word phrases and supposed proper grammar skills. In fact the education system in this country literally demoralizes the language is some idea that the intellectual is some how far more powerful or superior than the typical mind, when in fact it becomes a mastery of words over wisdom. Wisdom the experience of things and delusions the mastery of word chains, harsh isn’t it?

History and Religion go way back, and many have announced their dominance as the only one have they not? The authority, it kind of reminds me of some men in our white house or even better yet those hiding in the back ground pretending they will not be seen. It is not the sentence it is the message we send.

First recognize authority by looking in your mirror, your choice your total authority and to think any other or group of others of more or proper authority is a false claim.

What is sovereign, what are you? A Public, a politic, what were those in the day before the perversion of the idea over time and those perverting?

Constitutional law in its own right is wrong because some claim authority over as in law, in truth it is rules to hold improper authority from taking place. This is because Independence was born which is the light of Liberty, the constitution is liberties care taker to assure it stays this way. Those not following these rules do the act preceding Independence which were acts of tyranny. This would be straight english for any common laymen to understand.

The marvels of our historic language and its frivolous crimes against humanity by agents sent here to pervert such an understanding.

When we treat each other the way we wish to understand will we. To be word savvy is not all it has been taught to be and is a crime against us. History has many stories to tell so many you will not see them all, but with many looking we all see different ones we can expose to deliver the clear message of our Independence, our Liberty and our justice for all.

@WilliamSchooler William, your dialogue is incoherent. From it would guess you’re an anarchist. Now I don’t mean the violent bomb throwing type. The original meaning of anarchy was good but it’s not viable as a means of governance.

Thank you Roberto, this is what happens when you become so trained at the art of what some call literacy or intellectual thinking. Speaking above people is not understanding is it?

When you speak to these people and they are unable to comprehend only acknowledges what was really said. What it means is there no reason to puff out our chest to show some superiority in english language speaking that we are all here teaching each other about our independence (Liberty) of out of control Governments or even Religious groups. To be free from pathetic abusive groups cramming false authority down our throats. So please come back down to earth with the rest of us students and lets learn the basics of understanding, choice making and reachable objectives. Because I am not pretty or special or above I am life in communications with other life around me for a purpose to deliver back A Republic to this country unswayable as it has been in the past.

So if this last piece is too hard to understand please revert back to the dictionary for good old basic english the majority of us speak, thank you.

@WilliamSchooler Your lack of command of the English language is deplorable. It would seem you’re glorifying ignorance. Using proper English and grammar isn’t a sign of pride, it’s a sign of training in order to get ones thoughts across succinctly.

If you’re unable to use or understand the Queen’s English properly then go back to school. This isn’t the place for “See Jack and Jill go up the hill.” However, even that’s more cogent than your posts.

By the way, what does your looks have to do with anything? Do you not think yourself special in the eye’s of God? Or is there anything wrong with your position in life? Don’t understand my questions? Look again at the implications of the wording of your post.

All right mr. authority give it to us straight, I knew it would come out. Since you don’t know a thing about me and my two year study of language extended by my research into the dominant practices of language you sir have displayed the gamut of what I am talking about. The queens English go ahead make fun of me because it does not bother me at all, your dominance supersedes your patheticness trust me. It is you who cannot understand me for I have gotten out my secret decoder ring and understood everything you have said. And you say it is my problem, I bet you want to convince me also that all the super educated running this country did not bring us these crap ass results as well, Ha look again mr…

Nope, there is nothing wrong with my position in life at all, in fact I am sure of myself as well God. My looks have nothing to do with it but why do so many pride themselves on the mastery of words, to look good? LOL, impressive man, I can understand you but you cannot understand simple english, you tell me whats wrong with this picture.

For the record I do not COMMAND with words because I am not a commander, I am a Producing American defined by a foundation of terms for which I choose and my own authority to boot, so get off your high horsy and come back down to earth with the rest of us simple Life forms who actually do the work and don’t sit around looking pretty.

Wow, impressive and so well educated too. Damn sure scares me, that is for sure.

Good you should be scared of us who actually get things done, because we directly defy you who don’t. Sitting on A stage pretending is what got us here in this country. Maybe you have not studied enough on the present pathetic practice of education in this country because you are too proud to listen, that is ok you can be like the 1000s out there that only THINK they are superior but can show nothing of value. That think you are above others but your acts surely show below all others.

Grown I have because I do not sit around pretending I know a thing, I dig, and dig, and dig. I am like a nat to your worst nightmare. Exposing the truths while pretenders run around earth performing false authority on to others. Sit back in you chair and shut up. The last thing you are is my authority.

Consider this mutual respect, none is given and none will be delivered. One authority to another the way LIFE really is instead all this made up bull shi*. I bet this a clear message isn’t it?

@WilliamSchooler I’m not surprised that you take pride in your aggressive semi-illiteracy and aliteracy. I’m all too well aware of the egregious problems facing our educational system. You’re a perfect example of that, provided you even went to school in the US. I now have reason to believe English is a second language to you. By the way, I admire those who speak more than one language.

So what acts of mine are below that of others? Is it daring to criticize your poor use of the English language, your poor grammatical skills, your poor spelling, or your poor comprehension? Since when have I claimed or intimated that I have authority or superiority over you?

You write, “Grown I have because I do not sit around pretending I know a thing.” Quite right; you don’t pretend to know a thing because you know very little. You tell me to shut up. Do you believe for an instance I’m intimidated by your bellicosity? Who is the one who thinks they’re superior?

So grow some cojones and become a mesnch my aggressively and puerile semi-illiterate friend.

Oh you ignorant man, claiming anything. You pose the authority many do only suggesting you know while attempting to take our country down a toilet. I don’t fear you because you say nothing.

You act as so called educated lie, authoritarians claiming only authority over with their dominating languages only meant for the few to understand, Oh yes us common folk, the producers of the world, how dare we think we not have to look up to you. But you are lifeless made up puffing out your chest as though prominent but hysterical at best.

You know nothing only showing you think you know what you do not sir.

I have to grow nothing, now sit down in your chair as your uselessness has been shared, thank you kind sir. Ignorance has never been louder broadcast, thank you for sharing it with us, you fool.

I am not here to impress thus the level of conversation with most. I am pretty sure I pointed out where pride lay, its shining bright in the Prominent by word significance. But I am sure pride of all the law schools could in no way find their way home because of all the time they spent building themselves to be 0s, or prominent or pretty word spewers.

Its ok, I understand how we all got in the trap its only those who realize this who get out of the trap. And since for my self and all those around me I have become a symbol of completions, my recognitions is genuine and not made up and therefore have no reason to impress a common soul.

For the elitist, lawyers, politicians type I am defiance in the highest degrees because I have located where the source of ignorance spews from. You can call it a skill of observation, something you probably don’t practice because of the higher trap door of what is called learning, the practice that stops learning because it allows people to pretend to know all these things that they have no clue about.

I am sure this is just a complete miss understanding of Observation and pride or thinking.

William, your hubris is exceeded only by your ignorance and disingenuousness. Your take aggressive pride at your inability to correctly and cogently use the English language. You accuse others who believe in the Constitution, fiscal sanity, lower taxation, smaller less intrusive government, and government protecting our borders of sending the country down the toilet. You mock those who want to restore this once great country to a democratic Republic under the rule of constitutional law with a free market capitalist economy with true contract law. You’re probably unaware or don’t care that we no longer have an intact Constitution, particularly an intact Bill of Rights. I can only surmise if you believe your inanity is a noble endeavor then you’re either a communist or a libertarian anarchist. If so, how sad. There’s not much difference between them.

Have you no concept of how absurd your post sounds? The very first first sentence is not only nonsensical, it’s dishonest. It’s clear you have no probity, only pride and arrogance. You assert that by using the English language succinctly and correctly I ‘m being prideful yet you’re unable to elucidate a cogent thought. You reject higher education likely because you’re unable to achieve such. You claim recognition out of a false exaltation of yourself, the very essence of pride. You show an extreme animus towards educated people in order to compensate for you own lack of learning. You, sir, are sure of nothing except your own ego.

Clearly Roberto you are far too smart for your own good and shows without question you only think you know. My certainties my findings, my discoveries and surely not yours. Stop pretending you claim to know it all for you show no valid proof. Because I challenge those who think make me know less intelligent.

I am A Producing American by trade something you will never understand because you think yourself higher of such a simple stance. My principals in the Declaration of Independence my principal of choice. Dare not pretend to know a thing about me for you have not lived in my shoes for I have and my determination as genuine as I am here.

You sir have over stepped your bounds as some authority for which you have not one thing to show and you have provided nothing of significance except ignorance which you truly display by the prominence which spews it.

Why, so I can be like you, don’t you get it? I have no intention of being like you. Its the message I send and not all the prim and proper and prominent. Us producers don’t have to spell everything correctly we only have to deliver products people actually need and want and I already understand you do not care. No big deal I don’t need your permission to be me.

Why don’t you focus on you and not all the rest of us who actually do deliver.

@WilliamSchooler Your hubris knows no bounds. I’ve not once claimed to know it all or even most all, but you have. I’ll bet you don’t even know what I said I believed in. While I certainly believe in the Declaration of Independence it isn’t our Constitution. I doubt you you believe in such concepts that I mentioned. But then maybe you’re aliterate.

@WilliamSchooler So you admit championing semi-illiteracy, is that it? Besides, what do you produce other than hot air? I haven’t asked you to get permission from me for anything. So why do you lie so facilely?

@WilliamSchooler It would seem that all you stand for is aggressive semi-illiteracy, a disdain for education, and rebellion. Unfortunately, you haven’t any concept of what think and haven’t the courage either to state what you believe I think or what even you believe in. If you say I believe in superiority or elitism, your not wrong, you’re a liar.

I post in response to inane dishonest posts like yours because I fear people like you will bring about the end of the Great American Experiment. You have no coherent message because you have no comprehension what the Tenth Amendment Center is all about. It defends the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. It’s emphasis is on the Tenth Amendment which I doubt you even understand.

So tell me, are you a Ron Paul skin head? Or is it you’re an anarchist? Don’t worry, I doubt you’ll have the courage to answer such questions.

Bravo Roberto, thank you for the most elaborate spectacle of our enemy in this country. You are mad because I exposed you, you are out of control and cannot stop. You think you are providing some great service to the rest of us at the TAC.

You refuse to look at history and language, you have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you do not stand on the side of the constitution at all. That you only pride yourself on what you think you know. You have provided no productive material or thought. You like to recite poems and we get it.

You make great attempts to put me down to what? Attempt to prop you up? You do not even realize I have sucked into a hole you will not out live.

You are the perfect example of what I speak about on education in this country, your pride to have done so is so prominent you cannot see what has been done. Worst is you cannot even see I do and do not blame you but have suggested for you to look and you refuse.

For this reason you are exposed and will bare no weight with another. You have shown beyond all reasonable doubt your own falseness and there is not one thing about you that can or will produce any great results. This will be left to the rest of us that actually do something versus pretend on a stage.

@WilliamSchooler It’s sad you haven’t the courage to answer a direct question – not once. You make accusations but like many progressives you won’t back them up. Yes, I said progressive as I doubt you’re a constitutional conservative as I am. So again go ahead use the royal we and post more disingenuous responses for all to see.